CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these two writ petitions have sought for quashing of the selection list for awarding dealership/distributorship of LPG of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation at Kodagu District in favour of respondent 4 and for a declaration that the petitioner in each of the petitions is qualified and are entitled for dealership. ( 2 ) THE Hindustan Petroleum Corporation issued a notification published in the Deccan Herald daily in its issue dated 26-8-2000 calling for applications for appointment of LPG distributors under various categories at different locations in Karnataka State for HP gas. One such place is Somwarpet, Kodagu District. The distributorship is reserved for general category. Pursuant to the said notification the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 in W. P. No. 9765 of 2001 filed applications for distributorship. The Selection Committee in its proceedings dated 23-2- 2001 prepared the selection list placing respondent 4 at serial No. 1. This selection has been questioned by the petitioners in these two writ petitions. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the Selection Committee has violated the terms and conditions stipulated in Part I at serial No. 5 (A) on the ground that the Selection Committee has committed wrong in selecting respondent 4 in violation of one of the eligibility conditions. In support of this contention, it is submitted that respondent 4 already holds a letter of intent or dealership of M/s. H. P. C. and therefore he is ineligible for getting one more dealership in addition to the one which he has already got. It is nextly submitted that since respondent 4 is already running a business as distributor in the name of M/s. Raviraj Gas Agency, he cannot do business as full time dealer/distributor and therefore his selection as No. 1 in the selection list is illegal. It is nextly contended the income of respondent 4 is more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum and therefore he is ineligible to have a distributorship. ( 4 ) IN reply to the said submission Sri Narasimha Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent 4 submits that respondent 4 is not having any distributorship in his name and therefore he being eligible for distributorship, his selection is in order. 2,00,000/- per annum and therefore he is ineligible to have a distributorship. ( 4 ) IN reply to the said submission Sri Narasimha Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent 4 submits that respondent 4 is not having any distributorship in his name and therefore he being eligible for distributorship, his selection is in order. Further, it is submitted the 4th respondent, even assuming is working elsewhere in any capacity, he will give up all other activities and confine himself to the business as a full time dealer, in the event distributorship is awarded in his favour. In reply so far as the income is concerned, it is submitted, as per the assessment, his gross income never exceeded Rs. 2,00,000/- and therefore the Selection Committee is justified in selecting the 4th respondent at sl. No. 1, in the list for the purpose of distributorship. ( 5 ) THE petitioners in support of their arguments have produced certain indents placed by M/s. Raviraj Gas Agency and also the deed of partnership entered into between the 4th respondent and one N. Paramashiva to show that the business in LPG is by M/s. Raviraj Gas agency. No doubt partnership firm was constituted by one N. Paramashiva and respondent 4-P. K. Ravi on 1-4-1998. One of the objects for constituting the partnership firm is to continue to operate the business in the name and style of M/s. Raviraj Gas Agency. As seen from the partnership deed, the 4th respondent's share is 49%. Admittedly, the lpg distributorship at Virajpet is in the name of Sri N. Paramashiva as the said dealership was granted to Paramashiva as he was handicapped person since the dealership was reserved for a handicapped person. From the subscription voucher produced as Ex. D1, the name of dealership is described as Raviraj Gas Agency. The partnership deed also discloses that respondent 4 and N. Paramashiva have formed a partnership firm to run the business in LPG at Virajpet. But on record, no material has been produced to show that the distributorship granted in favour of N. Paramashiva has been transferred to the name of M/s. Raviraj Gas Agency, the partnership firm. The partnership deed also discloses that respondent 4 and N. Paramashiva have formed a partnership firm to run the business in LPG at Virajpet. But on record, no material has been produced to show that the distributorship granted in favour of N. Paramashiva has been transferred to the name of M/s. Raviraj Gas Agency, the partnership firm. ( 6 ) THE case of respondent 4 is that he is only working as a manager in the firm M/s. Raviraj Gas Agency and he is a power of attorney of Sri N. Paramashiva to look after the business of LPG at Virajpet. Respondent 2 has filed the statement of objections and produced certain documents along with the statement of objections. Annexure-R2a is the letter of intent issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in favour of sri Paramashiva. From Annexure-R2 (c) it is seen that N. Paramashiva had made a request to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation proposing to induct respondent 4 as partner in his distributorship. In this regard, m/s. Raviraj Gas Agency, run by N. Paramashiva as a proprietary concern was informed that the papers submitted by him are insufficient and therefore, he was advised to submit detailed proposal for taking 4th respondent as a partner. Ultimately, N. Paramashiva as per Annexure- r2 (d) informed Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited that he had no intention of taking any partner on full-fledged basis to do business along with him and accordingly he withdrew the proposal to take respondent 4 as partner. From this correspondence, it is seen that even though there is a partnership firm constituted consisting N. Paramashiva and 4th respondent as partners, the dealership has not been transferred to the name of partnership firm and even the letter of intent also was not issued to respondent 4. ( 7 ) FROM the correspondence referred to above it is seen that dealership/distributorship has not been transferred from the name of Paramashiva to M/s. Raviraj Gas Agency. Even the letter of intent produced by the Corporation is also in the name of Sri N. Paramashiva. If that is so, it cannot be said that respondent 4 either in his own capacity or as a member of the partnership holds any letter of intent issued by the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent 4 does not satisfy the above eligibility criteria. If that is so, it cannot be said that respondent 4 either in his own capacity or as a member of the partnership holds any letter of intent issued by the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent 4 does not satisfy the above eligibility criteria. ( 8 ) THE next condition is that the applicant is not entitled for dealership/distributorship if any of the close relatives hold a letter of intent. ( 9 ) ONE of the conditions regarding eligibility for awarding dealership reads as follows. "5 (A) No person shall be awarded a new dealership/distributorship if he/she already holds a Letter of intent (LOI) or a dealership/distributorship of MS/hsd/kerosene/ ldo/lpg of any Public Sector Oil Company. (b) No person shall be awarded a new dealership/distributorship if any of the following close relatives (including step relations) of the person already holds a letter of intent or a dealership/distributorship of MS/hsd/kerosene/ ldo/lpg of any Public Sector Oil Company: (i) Spouse; (ii) Father/mother (not applicable for daughter); (iii) Brother/brother's wife (not applicable for women applicants); (iv) Son/daughter-in-law". N. Paramashiva does not come in any of the categories of relatives referred to in Condition 5 (b) referred to above. Hence, there is no bar to get the dealership in his individual capacity even assuming that he is working either as a Manager or dealing in business in LPG at Virajpet under the Distributorship granted in favour of N. Paramashiva. Therefore, the eligibility criteria insofar as it relates to the relationship is concerned, respondent 4 does not incur any disqualification to get dealership/distributorship of LPG. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners nextly submits that respondent 4 being working as Manager or acting as agent of Sri N. Paramashiva is not available to do the business as a full time dealer and therefore he should not have been selected for awarding distributorship. Condition 9, Part II of the eligibility criteria reads as follows. "9. Full time working dealer. A person selected for the dealership/distributorship shall be a full time working dealer/distributor". ( 11 ) FROM a reading of the above condition it is clear that in the event a person is selected he must be a full time working dealer/distributor. Condition 9, Part II of the eligibility criteria reads as follows. "9. Full time working dealer. A person selected for the dealership/distributorship shall be a full time working dealer/distributor". ( 11 ) FROM a reading of the above condition it is clear that in the event a person is selected he must be a full time working dealer/distributor. ( 12 ) IT is not the case of the petitioners that in the event if the dealership is granted in favour of respondent 4 he is not in a position to do the business as a full time working dealer/distributor. Further, if any dealership is granted to a person and in the event if he is not doing the business as full time working dealer, it is open for the Corporation to cancel the dealership. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that respondent 4 is not available to do the business as a full time working dealer that too in view of the statement made on his behalf, that he would give up all other business provided that distributorship is granted in his favour. ( 13 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners the income of the 4th respondent is beyond rupees two lakhs per annum and therefore he is ineligible to get the dealership. As per the eligibility norms the gross income of the candidate should not be more than rupees two lakhs for the last financial year as specified in the advertisement. To show that income of the 4th respondent is more than rupees two lakhs for the last financial year as specified in the advertisement, the petitioners have not produced any material. On the other hand, from the statement of objections, filed on behalf of respondent 4, I find the income of respondent 4 is less than rupees two lakhs. Therefore, even on this ground also the petitioners have no case. ( 14 ) CONDITION 7, in Part I of the Eligibility Criteria is with reference to the partnership which reads as follows. "7. Partnership. Each partner should individually meet each eligibility norm. If any of the partners is found ineligible, the applications of all the partners shall be rejected". ( 15 ) FROM this what is seen is all the partners shall satisfy the eligibility norm in the event partnership firm makes an application seeking for dealership. "7. Partnership. Each partner should individually meet each eligibility norm. If any of the partners is found ineligible, the applications of all the partners shall be rejected". ( 15 ) FROM this what is seen is all the partners shall satisfy the eligibility norm in the event partnership firm makes an application seeking for dealership. In the present case the application is by the 4th respondent in his own name. Even assuming that the 4th respondent is one of the partners of M/s. Raviraj Gas Agency, it does not bar the 4th respondent to make an application in his individual capacity since the said clause is applicable only in a case where an application is filed by the partnership firm. Further, from the certificate issued by the Registrar of firms it is seen that M/s. Raviraj Gas Agency, though constituted in the year 1998 dissolved on 27-2-2001. From this it is seen that there is no firm in the name of Raviraj Gas Agency. If that is so, respondent 4 is j eligible to get the distributorship if he is otherwise qualified. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are not able to show that respondent 4 is ineligible for getting the distributorship. Hence, the selection of respondent 4 at No. 1 in the selection list is justified. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, writ petitions are rejected. --- *** --- .